Heres the rub.............Republicans publicly criticize the stimulus, proclaim that it won't work, vote against it, yet privately clamor for the funding because ( wait for it.... ) it will help create jobs.......that is hypocrisy of the highest order!

If not for the stimulus we'd be in a depression. It is working.The economy is slowly recovering and as it does jobs will be created! It took years to get into this mess itsgonna take at least a few to get out. Obama is on the right course!

BTW for a good explanation of the current mess watch The Ascent of Money Friday 10pm on PBS Niall Furgeson a Harvard prof and a Conservative is the narrator. Highlyrecommended.

Killdog, I honestly see your point on the GOP hypocracy. There people are caught in the middle between party and their constituents.

Where we take separate paths is saying that the stimulus is working and that Obama even has a clue. Spending like a madman is NOT the way to get out of this. It's the way to heighten it and possibly break the system (perhaps so he can save us yet again.. yawnnn).

Hypocricy is sometimes survival. If the GOP stood their ground after they lost the battle on the program and failed to get any of the pork their constituents would be all over them. The right thing was to stop it, but if you can't stop it you are compelled to get your fair share.

http://online.wsj.com/article /SB10001424052748703562404575067372476731404.html Heres the rub.............Republicans publicly criticize the stimulus, proclaim that it won't work, vote against it, yet privately clamor for the funding because ( wait for it.... ) it will help create jobs.......that is hypocrisy of the highest order! If not for the stimulus we'd be in a depression. It is working.The economy is slowly recovering and as it does jobs will be created! It took years to get into this mess its gonna take at least a few to get out. Obama is on the right course! BTW for a good explanation of the current mess watch The Ascent of Money Friday 10pm on PBS Niall Furgeson a Harvard prof and a Conservative is the narrator. Highly recommended.Posted by kelldog1

This is such a narrow minded view of how the world works. It is frightening to think people seriously buy in to this kind of thinking.

The stimulus passed. There is nothing those congressmen can do about it. Once it passed, they had an obligation to their constituents to make sure it was implemented in the best way possible. You can't just take your ball and go home every time a vote doesn't go your way.

'A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said Democrats risked being perceived as "totally out of touch" by marking the achievements of the stimulus plan on its anniversary. "If the Democrats' answer is to highlight the few worthy projects within what has become regarded as a wasteful and bloated trillion-dollar failure then they are truly grasping at straws," said Ken Spain.'

One of the few 'worthy' projects?

"The entire congressional delegation of Alabama, including its two Republican senators, wrote to then-Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell asking for $15 million for cogongrass eradication and control programs in the state. The state ended up getting a $6.3 million grant."

WASHINGTON -- Determined to have a deficit commission with or without Congress' backing, President Obama plans to announce on Thursday that he is establishing a panel similar to -- although weaker than-- the one lawmakers rejected.

Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson would lead the panel, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president's executive order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had not been announced.

The deficit spiked to an extraordinary $1.4 trillion last year and could top that figure this year as the struggling economy puts a big dent in tax revenues. Even worse from the perspective of economists and deficit hawks, the medium-term deficit picture is for deficits to hit around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future.

Obama and his economic team have said repeatedly that this is not sustainable. He told lawmakers during his State of the Union address that he would go around their vote and appoint a version of a deficit commission.

Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

Hypocricy is sometimes survival. If the GOP stood their ground after they lost the battle on the program and failed to get any of the pork their constituents would be all over them. The right thing was to stop it, but if you can't stop it you are compelled to get your fair share.Posted by massmoderateJoe

IF the stimulus IS working then WHY the following? WASHINGTON -- Determined to have a deficit commission with or without Congress' backing, President Obama plans to announce on Thursday that he is establishing a panel similar to -- although weaker than-- the one lawmakers rejected. Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson would lead the panel, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president's executive order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had not been announced. The deficit spiked to an extraordinary $1.4 trillion last year and could top that figure this year as the struggling economy puts a big dent in tax revenues. Even worse from the perspective of economists and deficit hawks, the medium-term deficit picture is for deficits to hit around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future. Obama and his economic team have said repeatedly that this is not sustainable. He told lawmakers during his State of the Union address that he would go around their vote and appoint a version of a deficit commission. Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.Posted by 1984-Redux

Gee I don't know. Could it be that this country has been running in the red for decades?Or maybe that the wingnuts are so devisive that they would actually vote against a bill that they co-sponsored puely for political reasons, forcing the president to do the prudent thing on his own. Nah the wingnuts are a bipartisan lot, they're all about country first....NOT.

IF the stimulus IS working then WHY the following? WASHINGTON -- Determined to have a deficit commission with or without Congress' backing, President Obama plans to announce on Thursday that he is establishing a panel similar to -- although weaker than-- the one lawmakers rejected. Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson would lead the panel, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president's executive order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had not been announced. The deficit spiked to an extraordinary $1.4 trillion last year and could top that figure this year as the struggling economy puts a big dent in tax revenues. Even worse from the perspective of economists and deficit hawks, the medium-term deficit picture is for deficits to hit around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future. Obama and his economic team have said repeatedly that this is not sustainable. He told lawmakers during his State of the Union address that he would go around their vote and appoint a version of a deficit commission. Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.Posted by 1984-Redux

Hmm, redux did you read somewhere that the stimulus bill was supposed to clear the deficit? Somehow I missed that bit of info.

I'll not reserve my opinion on jobs created vs. saved.Suggest (without qualification) that the jobs being saved are mostly political ones that might (key word) have been been lost. I suspect the same is for jobs created. Are these primarily in some level of government? I think we know HOW the game is played... smoke and mirrors.

Do you know any site that details the specifics of what jobs were created or "saved".

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : Man you wingnuts can rationalize anything. Self delusion must be a prerequisite for wingnuts nowadays.Posted by 12angrymen

12, let's take this to where you want to go. Only those states/districts whose Rep/Senator votes for it could get the benefit from it. THEN can't the rest who voted no say "we won't pay for it"? So you go to the districts that are getting the $$$ and you increase their taxes X to pay off the pork. I am ALL for that! BUT that isn't how it works. Soooooooooooooo... If I am going to pay for it why not get benefit from it?

The pork laden "stimulus" only adds to it. Don't you agree. I'll not reserve my opinion on jobs created vs. saved. Suggest (without qualification) that the jobs being saved are mostly political ones that might (key word) have been been lost. I suspect the same is for jobs created. Are these primarily in some level of government? I think we know HOW the game is played... smoke and mirrors. Do you know any site that details the specifics of what jobs were created or "saved". Appreciate any information. Posted by 1984-Redux

My job was listed as saved!!!! My boss said I wasn't being considered for layoff. "How am I a saved job I said if my job wasn't in danger?" He said because we got some of the TARP to pay for things you will use. We reported that and PRESTO CHANGO I am a saved job!!!! THAT is their criteria. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : 12, let's take this to where you want to go. Only those states/districts whose Rep/Senator votes for it could get the benefit from it. THEN can't the rest who voted no say "we won't pay for it"? So you go to the districts that are getting the $$$ and you increase their taxes X to pay off the pork. I am ALL for that! BUT that isn't how it works. Soooooooooooooo... If I am going to pay for it why not get benefit from it?Posted by brat13

Sooooooooooo wingnuts want to have it both ways. They rail against "the socialist way" but then turn around and campaign on how the "wasteful spending spree" is helping their districts. Their mouth says 'no' but their hands say 'yes'. Ya that's not hypocritical.

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : 12, let's take this to where you want to go. Only those states/districts whose Rep/Senator votes for it could get the benefit from it. THEN can't the rest who voted no say "we won't pay for it"? So you go to the districts that are getting the $$$ and you increase their taxes X to pay off the pork. I am ALL for that! BUT that isn't how it works. Soooooooooooooo... If I am going to pay for it why not get benefit from it?Posted by brat13

So a friend of yours tells you and a buddy he's going to rob a bank.You say don't do it and even take a vote which you lose 2-1.He robs the bank.He offers you some of the money.Would you take it?

The pork laden "stimulus" only adds to it. Don't you agree. I'll not reserve my opinion on jobs created vs. saved. Suggest (without qualification) that the jobs being saved are mostly political ones that might (key word) have been been lost. I suspect the same is for jobs created. Are these primarily in some level of government? I think we know HOW the game is played... smoke and mirrors. Do you know any site that details the specifics of what jobs were created or "saved". Appreciate any information. Posted by 1984-Redux

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : Sooooooooooo wingnuts want to have it both ways. They rail against "the socialist way" but then turn around and campaign on how the "wasteful spending spree" is helping their districts. Their mouth says 'no' but their hands say 'yes'. Ya that's not hypocritical.Posted by 12angrymen

Why is it hypocrisy to ask the people spending your dollars without your consent to at least buy you a dinner? Maybe a movie and kiss before bending you over and taking your wallet!

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : So a friend of yours tells you and a buddy he's going to rob a bank. You say don't do it and even take a vote which you lose 2-1. He robs the bank. He offers you some of the money. Would you take it?Posted by 12angrymen

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : Why is it hypocrisy to ask the people spending your dollars without your consent to at least buy you a dinner? Maybe a movie and kiss before bending you over and taking your wallet!Posted by brat13

By that logic anyone who disagrees with ANY spending policy should be able to get like money from the gov't for what THEY want.

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : Sooooooooooo wingnuts want to have it both ways. They rail against "the socialist way" but then turn around and campaign on how the "wasteful spending spree" is helping their districts. Their mouth says 'no' but their hands say 'yes'. Ya that's not hypocritical.Posted by 12angrymen

12, find a Constitutional way for the people who's elected representatives voted nay to NOT pay for it and you have an argument. Until then, if I have to pay for it I want to get something out of it. Seems simple to me! BUT for someone who says I get the $$$ AND YOU get the bill I guess my way doesn't make sense.I would then say lets have a one-man, one-vote ballot question. Those who vote yea get the $$ AND get a 5% tax increase (more or less) to pay it off. Those who vote nay don't get the $$$ AND don't get the tax increase.

There's nothing wrong with taking money for one's district, even if one didn't vote for the bill in the first place.

HOWEVER, there is a (another) double standard in criticizing the means by which that gift horse got there...just as it's hypocritical to say "no jobs were created" when the proof is right there in your constituency. Plus, they're wrong factually, which makes their hypocrisy all the more gratuitous.

Heck, half the people who got a tax cut as a result of last year's stimulus don't even know they got a tax cut!!! How many of those clueless stumps are tea party members???

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : 12, find a Constitutional way for the people who's elected representatives voted nay to NOT pay for it and you have an argument. Until then, if I have to pay for it I want to get something out of it. Seems simple to me! BUT for someone who says I get the $$$ AND YOU get the bill I guess my way doesn't make sense. I would then say lets have a one-man, one-vote ballot question. Those who vote yea get the $$ AND get a 5% tax increase (more or less) to pay it off. Those who vote nay don't get the $$$ AND don't get the tax increase.Posted by brat13

See I knew you were a socialist at heart.The Dems did all the work on this, they wrote the bill, they voted yes and they had to sell it to the people. Now they wingnuts, who fought every aspect of this want to come in and demand a portion of the work the Dems did. Spread the wealth but not the risk, that's the definition of socialism.

In Response to Re: Wall Street Journal Article Exposes GOP Hypocrisy : See I knew you were a socialist at heart. The Dems did all the work on this, they wrote the bill, they voted yes and they had to sell it to the people. Now they wingnuts, who fought every aspect of this want to come in and demand a portion of the work the Dems did. Spread the wealth but not the risk, that's the definition of socialism.Posted by 12angrymen

LOL, yea no risk to those of us who opposed the $800 BILLION TARP bailout/handout of MY tax dollars... THAT there is funny no matter what horse you rode in on!